Opinion In the shadow of terror

The timing of the attack should also be lost on no one,coming just a day after India and Pakistan set a date for talks,after a lull of 14 months. It is also part of a larger pattern of attacks that serve to vitiate the atmosphere just before such engagements between the two countries — in July 2006 the Mumbai train blasts,in February 2007 the Samjhauta Express blasts,and in July 2008 the Kabul embassy bombing,all just preceded foreign-secretary and foreign ministerial talks. The Mumbai attacks of November 2008 took place during the visit of Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi here to “fast track” the fifth round of the composite dialogue.

But even pre-Pune,India-Pakistan talks were marked by a series of jolts — and foreign secretaries Nirupama Rao and Salman Bashir have an unenviable task ahead of them when they meet on February 25. On the Indian side the initiative began with clumsiness — first,the invitation to Bashir that was leaked to the press before it had even been accepted,after the abrupt turnaround in New Delhi’s official position not to talk until Pakistan cracks down on terror groups. In January,India told an insistent Pakistan to “introspect on the reasons which have put a strain on relations” and held up talks. In February,the tables were turned — with India pressing for early foreign secretary talks,and Pakistan taking its time to respond.

Pakistan matched India’s clumsiness with combativeness — General Ashfaq Kayani’s comments on India being “enemy number 1”,the open forum granted to jehadi leaders including Hafeez Saeed on Kashmir solidarity day,followed by Qureshi lashing out at a public rally. “Pakistan hasn’t kneeled before India to beg for talks”,he said. “It is our pressure on the international community that got them asking for dialogue.” While the jehadi jamboree may have been expected,as it is an annual event for groups like the Hizbul Mujahideen and the Lashkar-e-Toiba (except 2009),Qureshi’s words shocked many. For the past few years Qureshi has been seen as the Pakistani “dove”,with a background in Track-II initiatives. In the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks,he kept the peace when rhetoric rose.

Some of his anger today may be about hurt — he has been snubbed twice in the recent past when India refused bilateral talks with him at both the CHOGM in Port of Spain,and at the Afghanistan Conference in London. Some of it may be explained by his rivalry with Prime Minister Gilani,who is now taking a conciliatory tone with India. Some of Qureshi’s bluster may come from Pakistan’s new-found confidence at being placed on the centrestage of the West’s Af-Pak efforts. Whatever the reasons,Qureshi’s words are cause for worry for the peace process,if it has lost him as a promoter.

Perhaps the hardest part about restarting an engagement now will be the public sentiment on both sides — 14 months of no dialogue has left a general opposition to talks in India,and judging by conversations with ordinary Pakistanis last month during the IPL fiasco,not much of a push for talks on the other side of the border either. Unless dialogue and all the cross-border mechanisms that go with it are revived now,this will be the most difficult legacy to reverse in the post-Mumbai detente.

To that end,it might have been better to allow a politician to test the waters with Pakistan before the officials did — as in the original plan to send Home Minister P. Chidambaram for the Saarc Home Ministers’ conference — where he could be expected to deliver a tough Indian line on terror. But events have already overtaken that sort of ground preparation. The foreign secretaries now have multiple roles — of reopening dialogue with new issues like Pakistan’s water crisis,while balancing Indian public expectations of action on the Mumbai attacks — a public freshly angered by Pune.

To begin the engagement in such an atmosphere is indeed an act of courage. But fortune,they say,favours the brave,and not the terrorist.

The writer is with CNN-IBN

express@expressindia.com